djskillz
Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
|
[quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"][quote="djskilbr"][quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]I hate to theorize this, but when I look at how horrid the NFL is this year, I just can't believe that New England is as good as everyone says they are. Oh. they are good, no doubt, but there are only TWELVE teams with winning records in the league. The AFC West doesn't have one team above .500. New England by themselves have won more games the rest of the teams in their division. Two divisions are being led by teams with 6-4 records. 13 teams are below .500. The combined record for the teams New England has beat is 43-47. They have only beat three teams with winning records (Browns, Cowboys, Colts). Note that this combined record is within a few games of the combined record of the opponents of Dallas and Green Bay as well. So, I ask you, are the Patriots really "the best team in NFL history." I just don't think so. I think their record is more a product of: A) free agency depleting many teams and Belichick making smart moves in the off season B) The current deplorable groups of QBs in the league....if you can name me more than 10 good QBs, I'll eat my Packer cap C) The Patriots almost miraculous avoidance of significant injuries this year to key offensive players Again, I'm not saying they suck, but how much of this 10-0 record and the high scores are simply because the league isn't that good this year. Just because the Patriots are the "best" this year, doesn't mean they are that good, does it? And I agree with (I think it was) JC who said if Harrison and Dallas Clark were healthy, no way the Patriots beat the Colts in Indy earlier this year. I watched that game and Harrison and Clark would have made all the difference in the world.[/quote] Incidentally, this is why I don't think the Packers are very good.[/quote] Umm, not sure which part of my post is the "why" you refer to, unless you mean that the Pack getting to 9-1 is more because the rest of the league sucks so bad. If that's the case, then the Cowboys, Colts, Steelers, and Patriots aren't that good either. Other than the Patriots winning one more game and scoring a shitload of points more than everyone else (which, by the way, is a source of debate ranging across the whole NFL consistently) how different are the Patriots from the 'Boys or the Pack? They aren't. Brady is playing lights out, and Moss is having a great year, but that's it. But the combined records of the teams faced by the Pats, the Cowboys and the Pack is almost identical (I can get the numbers for you if you want). And what would it take for you to think they are, at a minimum, the second best team in the NFC? Or is the NFC so bad that it doesn't matter if they go 15-1, that even if they make it to the Super Bowl, you'll think they're only average? Because there are plenty of sucky AFC teams too (hello, Miami?). May I remind you that the Packers are the youngest team in the NFL, starting a number of 2nd year guys (Jennings, Hawk, those 2 OL guys), at least one rookie on offense (Jones) and using a first string RB who was salvaged from the Giants' practice squad. Being 9-1 with those guys is pretty good, IMO.[/quote] Well that IS "why" to me. I think the league is SO bad right now. I actually agree that the Packers are marginally the second best team in the NFC. I just still don't think that that's particularly good is all. It's a very marginal/close league except for a few teams. And I do think Dallas, while a HUGE notch below the Pats, is a HUGE notch ABOVE the Pack. We will see shortly.
|
Printable Version
RE:NFL News - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread